Comments on: MI: “New Idea” Is the Same Old Problem – And Taxpayers Will Pay Again

By: DEREK W LOGUE of OnceFallen.com

DEREK W LOGUE of OnceFallen.com — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 13:14:31 +0000

It just gives the appearance of doing something to “protecc da childrenz.”

Very few, if anyone, ever get hired at these places with any kind of record much less a registerable offense; it is obviously a rare thing or the TV news media wouldn’t adverise every instance in which it does.

By: obvious answers

obvious answers — Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:03:12 +0000

In reply to Mable. they never really fail . they almost always succeed just as a hide the bad legislation game cycles.. Legislation says this looks draconian and illogical so let's do it. court says "I'll ignore 97% of it and pretend to find 3% illegal.. Don't stop enforcing it, just keep it up until you rewrite something even worse then I'll see you again in a few years to rinse and repeat..

By: Crazy88

Crazy88 — Sun, 26 Apr 2026 22:49:45 +0000

In reply to FAC-3. Not to do that but to help find a family that may need a house to rent in hernando

By: FAC-3

FAC-3 — Sun, 26 Apr 2026 21:57:50 +0000

In reply to Crazy88. We don't subsidize rent

By: Crazy88

Crazy88 — Sun, 26 Apr 2026 16:48:15 +0000

I am moving and want too out of state of Florida. I am owner of property so do have the option to rent. Its 3 bedroom 2 bath on lake with pool .3 acre land. With right price consider renting and with new bills with restrictions this may help for its 1000 feet and with lake can not build or create daycare or child care facility. Lake is private since you love on it be your personal waterway too. FAC is there some way to help facilitate this for i would only rent to PFR and since background i know be there lol be more income verification for me.

By: obvious answers

obvious answers — Sun, 26 Apr 2026 02:00:11 +0000

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here? Yes, these are state legislatures rather than federal officials, but does anyone truly believe state legislatures are any more ethical or noble than their slimy federal counterparts?
These clowns are just junior versions of the same Epstein Island system: always running multiple taxpayer-funded mechanisms to effectively shield officials from accountability for their s2exul escapades while using public money to cover up their s3xual misconduct and passing draconian laws against the population. The whole rafter in the eye scenario and do as I say not as I do.
There is a very high likelihood this legislation will pass, allowing lawmakers to tighten restrictions further on lower-income individuals. While Michigan courts have occasionally struck down portions of overly broad or unconstitutional laws (does vrs state 1,2,3,), one critical detail is often overlooked: it’s largely a “nuts and shells” game. In practice, very little positive ever truly changes.
I know this from personal experience—my own case was one of those cited, and my wife’s statement became one of the most widely publicized and disseminated examples. The pattern is predictable: Legislatures pass expansive laws containing dozens of provisions that are legally questionable or outright unconstitutional. After years of enforcement, courts may strike down one or two provisions, but they typically give the state an opportunity to rewrite and re-enact similar measures then return to appeals, then rewrite then appeals, virtually for forever.
During that time, the state continues enforcing the original (often illegal) rules for additional years while drafting replacements that are frequently even more restrictive with no relief for the victims and no punishment to the state. The cycle repeats indefinitely. Don’t take my word for it—look at Doe v. State in Michigan, (1,2,3,4 ect…). After decades of litigation, there is still no meaningful resolution, and the situation has arguably grown worse with each round. The legislature rarely waits for one set of restrictions to be fully litigated before introducing new, even harsher measures to layer on top.

By: J

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 22:57:47 +0000

I wish people actually cared for the safety of their children instead of ignoring them to hate us.

By: FAC Contributor #12

FAC Contributor #12 — Sat, 25 Apr 2026 22:03:58 +0000

In reply to Mable. FAC’s initial Out of State Challenge filing was withdrawn due to statute of limitations issues affecting our initial plaintiff. Lawsuits filed by others facing this issue have not been successful. Our plan is to try again, but under current circumstances, this is not the right time to re-file.

By: Mable

Mable — Sat, 25 Apr 2026 20:28:36 +0000

“Laws that ignore individualized risk in favor of broad classifications have repeatedly failed under judicial scrutiny in Michigan.”
Have laws like this also failed in Florida? I am thinking of the out of state lifelong florida registration for someone left on the roll after leaving the state from a vacation or left the state and removed from their state of conviction?

By: TS

TS — Sat, 25 Apr 2026 17:43:18 +0000

In reply to Luther S..

Stop trying to think logically about it, you will only hurt your head.

The other thing here is, to split hairs, is the wording “patronize a business with a play area”, e.g., McD’s. Technically, if you used a food delivery service to deliver food from said business, you have still possibly patronized the business by a third party and are in violation of the law as you quoted from the PO. There is no specific clarification on how one can/cannot patronize the business. Clarification is needed from the court on patronizing of the establishment whether it be on the inside, the drive-thru, and via third party services because the PO has established a blanket extra requirement which has not been established in the law as you quoted. Unless there is an immediate threat, the drive-thru and third party services should be acceptable uses to patronize the business regardless if there is a play area or not on the premise. Maybe I am wrong though in my line of thought…